Appraisal of scientific evidence in criminal justice systems: On winds of change and coexisting formats

Law, Probability and Risk

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 105-115

  Simmross, Ulrich ^a  

^a Bundeskriminalamt   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bayesian approach; Conclusion scale; Criminal justice systems; Forensic science; Likelihood ratio; Material analysis; Scientific evidence; Scientific standards; Trace evidence

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901857594     PISSN: 14708396     EISSN: 1470840X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgu001     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. AITKEN, C. G. G.&TARONI, F. (2004). Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. John Wiley&Sons, Chichester.
2. AITKEN, C., ROBERTS, P.&JACKSON, G. (2010). Communicating and Interpreting Statistical Evidence in the Administration of Criminal Justice - 1. Fundamentals of Probability and Statistical Evidence in Criminal Proceedings - Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses, Royal Statistical Society.
3. AITKEN, C., BERGER, C. E. H, BUCKLETON, J. S., CHAMPOD, C., DAWID, A. P., EVETT, I. W., GILL, P., GONZALEZRODRIGUEZ, J.&JACKSON, G. (2011). Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement. Science&Justice, 51(1), 1-2.
4. AITKEN, C. (2012). An introduction to a debate. Law, Probability and Risk, 11, 255-258.
5. Association of Forensic Science Providers (2009). Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Science&Justice, 49 (3), 161-164.
6. BÄ R, W. (2001). Vom Befund zum Beweis. Nova Acta Leopoldina NF 84, 320, 35-43 (German).
7. BENDER, R., NACK, A.&TREUER, W.-D. (2007). 3. Kapitel. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie, 2. Abschnitt. Bayes-Theorem. Tatsachenfeststellung vor Gericht, 3. Aufl. München 2007, Rz. 668-670, 173-174 (German).
8. BIEDERMANN, A., HICKS, T., VOISARD, R., TARONI, F., CHAMPOD, C., AITKEN, C. G. G.&EVETT, I. W. (2013). E-learning initiatives in forensic interpretation: report on experiences from current projects and outlook. Forensic Science International, 230, 2-7.
9. BOHLANDER, M. (2012). Introduction - Germany as an inquisitorial system. Principles of German Criminal Procedure. Hart Publishing, Oxford.
10. BUCKLETON, J. (2004). Chapter 2. A framework for interpreting evidence. In: Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation (J. Buckleton, C. M. Triggs&S. J. Walsh eds.). CRC Press, London.
11. CARLSSON, G., DZUBA, D., HEFFERNAN, L., MORSELT, I., SIMMROSS, U., PFEFFERLI, P.&LING, G. (2009). Final Report of the ENFSI-Project ForJust.
12. COBURN, P. (2006). The Change Function: why some technologies take offand others crash and burn. Penguin Group.
13. COLE, S. A.&THOMPSON, W. C. (2013). Forensic science and wrongful convictions. In: Wrongful Convictions & Miscarriages of Justice (C. R. Huff&M. Killias eds.). Taylor and Francis Group, Routledge.
14. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council (2009). Strengthening Forensic Sciences in the United States: A Path Forward. The National Academies Press, Washington, e.g. S-5: Problems Relating to the Interpretation of Forensic Evidence.
15. COOK, R., EVETT, I.W., JACKSON, G., JONES, P. J.&LAMBERT, J. A. (1998a). A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Science&Justice, 38 (4), 231-239.
16. COOK, R., EVETT, I.W., JACKSON, G., JONES, P. J.&LAMBERT, J. A. (1998b). A model for case assessment and interpretation. Science&Justice, 38 (3), 151-156.
17. COOPER, S. L. (2012). The collision of law and science: American Court responses to developments in forensic science. Pace Law Review 234, 33, see http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol33/iss1/6, date-of-visit: 6 November 2013.
18. DE KEIJSER, J.&ELFFERS, H. (2012). Understanding of forensic expert reports by judges, defense lawyers and forensic professionals. Psychology, Crime&Law, 18, 191-207.
19. ENGEL, C. (2012). Neglect the base rate. It's the Law!. Preprint of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, http://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2012_23online.pdf, date-of-visit: 6 November 2013.
20. EURO JUSTICE, Agis (2004). Country report Sweden. http://www.euro-justice.com/member_states/sweden/country_report/635/, date-of-visit: 6 November 2013.
21. EVETT, I.W., JACKSON, G.&LAMBERT, J.A. (2000).More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. Science&Justice, 40 (1), 3-10.
22. FINALREPORTS (2011). For instance see final reports ofENFSI EWGPaint and Glass' Collaborative Exercises (CE) on Tapes 2009 and 2011 or those of commercial providers like Forensic Testing Services (FTS) or Collaborative Testing Services (CTS) as far as accessible (usually restricted to participants).
23. FORSTAT (2013). See for instance. http://www.ies.krakow.pl/conferences/forstat2013/, date-of-visit: 6 November 2013.
24. HAUCK, J. G. (1996). Zur quantitativen Beurteilung des Beweiswertes von Spurenmaterial. Kriminalistik und forensische Wissenschaften, 85, 1-24 (German).
25. HOWES, L. M., KIRKBRIDE, K. P., KELTY, S. F., JULIAN, R. &KEMP, N. (2013). Forensic scientists' conclusions: how readable are they for non-scientist report-users? Forensic Science International, 231, 102-112.
26. HUMMEL, K. (1980). Nochmals: Biostatistische Vaterschaftswahrscheinlichkeit und Essen-Möller-Verfahren. NJW, 1320-1322 (German).
27. KATTERWE, H., BALDWIN, D., VAN BEEST, M., BELSER, C., BIRKETT, J., GIROD, A., KEEREWEER, I., MOES, M., SHOR, Y., VOLCKERYCK, G.&YTTI, A. (2006). Conclusion scale for shoeprint and toolmarks examinations. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56, 255-280.
28. KELLER, R. (1999). Verwissenschaftlichung versus Rationalität der strafprozessualen Beweiswürdigung. Goldtdammer's Archiv für Strafrecht, 6, 255-272 (German).
29. KINGSTON, C. R.&KIRK, P. (1964). The use of statistics in criminalistics. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 55, 514-521.
30. KINGSTON, C. R. (1965a). Applications of probability theory in criminalistics 1. Journal of theAmerican Statistical Association, 60 (309), 70-80.
31. KINGSTON, C. R. (1965b). Applications of probability theory in criminalistics, 2. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60 (312), 1028-1034.
32. KÖSTER, O. (2013). Personal Communication. Lecturer at the German Judical Academy, Annual classes see e.g. http://www.deutsche-richterakademie.de/icc/draen/nav/17b/broker.jsp?uMen=17b248eb-8049-0415-c11c-6856350fd4c2&uCon=dc24091e-ceec-8241-d5c3-b3816350fd4c&press=true&pagesize=1&page=1&mode=detail, date-of-visit: 14 January 2014.
33. KRUSE, C. (2013). The Bayesian approach to forensic evidence: evaluating, communicating, and distributing responsibility. Social Studies of Science, online version: http://sss.sagepub.com/content/43/5/657 (version of record: 19 September 2013), date-of-visit: 6 November 2013.
34. LAURIN, J. E. (2013). Remapping the path forward: toward a systemic view of forensic science reform and oversight. Texas Law Review, 91, 1051-1118.
35. LAWLESS, C. J. (2010). A curious reconstruction? The shaping of 'Marketized' Forensic Science. CARR Discussion papers, DP 63. Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation. London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
36. Special Issue on the R v T Debate. Law, Probability and Risk (2012). 11 (4), 225-375.
37. LIGERTWOOD, A.&EDMOND, G. (2012). Expressing evaluative forensic science opinions in a court of law. Law, Probability and Risk, 11 (4), 289-302.
38. M1 project: The development and implementation of an ENFSI standard for reporting evaluative forensic evidence. Theme of MP2010 programme is Strengthening the Evaluation of Forensic Results across Europe (STEOFRAE) (see http://www.enfsi.eu/projects/monopoly-programmes-mp/mp2010), date-of-visit: 6 November 2013.
39. MARKOWITZ, A. (2001). Jury secrecy during deliberations. The Yale Law Journal, 110, 1493-1530.
40. MARTIRE, K. A., KEMP, R. I.&NEWELL, B. R. (2013). The psychology of interpreting expert evaluative opinions. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2013.784361, date-of-visit: 6 November 2013.
41. MEHLTRETTER, A. H. (2013). Personal Communication, 12 December 2013.
42. NACK, A. (1995). Beweiswürdigung beim Indizienbeweis. Kriminalistik, 7-8, 466-470 (German).
43. NACK, A. (1999). Beweisrecht - Zum Beweiswert kriminaltechnischer Untersuchungsergebnisse. Kriminalistik, 1, 32-39 (German).
44. NORDGAARD, A., ANSELL, R., DROTZ, W.&JAEGER, L. (2012). Scale of conclusion for the value of evidence. Law, Probability and Risk, 11, 1-24.
45. RISINGER, D.M. (2013). Reservations about likelihood ratios (and some other aspects of forensic 'Bayesianism'). Law, Probability and Risk, 12, 63-73.
46. R v T (2010). EWCA Crim 2439. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2010/2439.pdf, date-of-visit: 6 November 2013.
47. SAKS, M. J.&NEUFELD, S. L. (2011). Convergent evolution in law and science: the structure of decision-making under uncertainty. Law, Probability and Risk, 10, 133-148.
48. SCHIFFER, B. (2009). The relationship between forensic science and judicial error: a study covering error sources, bias, and remedies. PhD thesis. University of Lausanne.
49. SCHOLL, C. (1979). Biostatistische Vaterschaftswahrscheinlichkeit und Essen-Möller-Verfahren. NJW, 1913-1919; 1916ff(German).
50. SCHWEIZER, M. (2014). Comparing holistic and atomistic evaluation of evidence. Law, Probability and Risk, 13, 65-89.
51. SCHWEIZER, M. (2013). Personal Communication as to the German situation.
52. SIMMROSS, U. (2000). Der Sachbeweis im europäischen Vergleich - Erkenntnisse aus dem GROTIUS-Projekt 'Strafprozessualer Beweis und wissenschaftlicher Fortschritt' in vier Ländern. Kriminalistik, 11, 737-745 (German).
53. SIMMROSS, U. (2009). Forensik-Bildung für Richter, Strafverfolger und Strafverteidiger. Kriminalistik, 10, 544-549 (German).
54. SPIELMANN, W.&SEIDL, S. (1978). Zur Definition und zum Beweiswert der Vaterschaftswahrscheinlichkeit. NJW, 2333-2334 (German).
55. SPIELMANN, W.&SEIDL, S. (1980). Nochmals: Biostatistische Vaterschaftswahrscheinlichkeit und Essen-Möller-Verfahren. NJW, 1322-1323 (German).
56. TURVEY, B. E. (2012). Forensic fraud: evaluating law enforcement and forensic science cultures in the context of examiner misconduct. PhD thesis. Criminology Department Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Bond University Queensland, Australia.
57. VUILLE, J. (2013). Admissibility and appraisal of scientific evidence in continental Europe criminal justice systems: past, present and future. The Australian Journal of Forensic Science, 1-9.
58. WILLIS, S. (2009). Forensic science, ethics and criminal justice. In: Handbook of Forensic Science (J. Fraser&R. William eds.). 523-545. Willan, Devon, UK.
59. WILLIS, S. (2011). Forensic science: associated risks. Criminal Law and Procedure Reviews, 60-68.
60. WILLIS, S. (2012). Letter to the editor: standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion-Association of Forensic Science Providers. Science&Justice, 50, 49.
61. Wirtschaftslexikon (2011). Standardisierung, hier: VII. Grenzen der Standardisierung (German), see http://www.daswirtschaftslexikon.com/d/standardisierung/standardisierung.htm, date-of-visit: 6 November 2013.